TB3-05615
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, a country designated under the IRPA and party to the relevant agreement, s.110(2)(d) precludes an appeal from an RPD decision respecting their refugee claims even though regulations rendered the claims eligible; accordingly the RAD lacks jurisdiction and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB3-05615
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 October 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Jurisdiction and Appealability
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appealability, Jurisdiction, Safe Third Country, Convention Refugee, Eligibility Regulations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Jurisdiction and Appealability
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.110(2)(d) of the IRPA bars an appeal where the claimant came from a designated country (United States) even though regulations render the claim eligible
- 2 Whether the RAD may set aside the RPD decision or refer for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellants came directly from the United States, a country designated under the IRPA and party to the relevant agreement, s.110(2)(d) precludes an appeal from an RPD decision respecting their refugee claims even though regulations rendered the claims eligible; accordingly the RAD lacks jurisdiction and the appeals are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-05615 TB3-05616 TB3-05617 TB3-05618 TB3-05619 TB3-05620 TB3-05621 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision October 2, 2013 Date de la décision Panel Edward Bosveld Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Elyse Korman Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellants) appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their claims for refugee protection. Their claims were heard by the RPD on April 29, May 23, and June 21, 2013, and were denied in a decision and reasons dated July 26, 2013. The Appellants ask the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside that decision and substitute a decision finding them to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, or, in the alternative, that the RAD refer the matter for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel of the RPD. [2] Section 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provides that: 110. (2) No appeal may be made in respect of any of the following: (d) subject to the regulations, a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection if o (i) the foreign national who makes the claim came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country that is, on the day on which their claim is made, designated by regulations made under subsection 102(1) and that is a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d), and (ii) the claim - by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 102(1)(c) - is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division; [3] The only country that is designated by regulation and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d) of the IRPA is the United States. The Appellants in this case came directly from the United States but were nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [4] These appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Edward Bosveld" Edward Bosveld October 2, 2013 Date RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB3-05615 TB3-05616 TB3-05617 TB3-05618 TB3-05619 TB3-05620 TB3-05621